Who is this odd fellow and why do people keep posting him

>>1169370
a spook

>>1169370
he is basically an anarchist with an over inflated ego who is basically only known because he wrote an obscure book and that Frederick Engels drew a picture of him in an unflattering way (OP pic)

>>1169370

Mr Spook.

Someone who contested that good and evil don't exist, that you should treat other human beings as your property, and that placing your monarch, nation, family or God above yourself, is dumb.

Constantine's greatest fear.

>>1170021
>property
Property is a spook in it's own right.

>>1170033
Unless it's yours.

>>1170013
>that pic
>unflattering

>>1170036
You mean the object? That's a fucking spook senpai.

>>1170044
For Stirner, property as one's own isn't a spook, because it serves you, not the other way around.

>ask not what you can do for your property, but what your property can do for you

>>1170048
And Stirner is a spook in his own rights, who is he to tell me what I consider a spook? Is he the leader of the union which declares what is and what isn't a spook? He preaches anarchy and you tell me I need to follow him? Why follow the anarchist when it's following.

>>1170068
"Spook" is a term coined by Stirner, defined by him. You can coin a term "spook" with a different definition but at that point you're using a different term, just with the same name.

>>1170068
Stirner does not hand you a list of do's and don'ts. He explains how the mind and human experience work.

What you are doing is the equivelent of saying that an art school that says "draw what you want" and than attempts to teach is fucked up. Why do I need to learn how to mix color? Why do I need to know how to frame a canvas or clean the brushes? Who are they to tell me what the difference between acrylic and oil paint is!

>>1170101
So using my own ego to overpower his bullshit.
>>1170105
>listening to someone preach about anarchism
Isn't that contradictory? I'm not being taught, I'm being told by the system (that being the anarchist) that I need to read his bullshit to understand what he believes to be the human mind? I don't buy it.

>>1170125
I smell a commie.

>>1170141
How am I commie for pointing out the flaws of anarchism? How am I a commie for saying that his ideas are horseshit and contradictory?
If it's about ego-driven anarchism, I would expect ego driven anarchism, where it's lawlessness and someone being strong to bully the weak and create a state society afterwards.

>>1170152
Because you were getting upset that Stirner believes in ownership

>>1170167
How do you own something? Is it enforced by the government, enforced by the trade? But aren't those spooks?

>>1170175
Stirner doesn't believe in ownership realization by law, but by act. Legal ownership is meaningless to him,.

>>1170178
Then how do you own something?

>>1170182
De facto

>>1170186
Explain how something is De facto mine?

>>1170191
Suppose you're stuck on a desert island with me, and you keep me in chains and force me to do your labor. Am I not de facto your slave and property?

>>1170195
No, it would be De Jure because I am the government and you are my faithful worker listening to me like I am God of the Island.

>>1170200
What if the island belongs to another government which has outlawed slavery?

>>1170203
But I am the government on the Island, are you telling me I need to bow down to the authority of a person that isn't there to tell me what's what? No, I declare that you are the slave and I am the master, and by the right vested in me being the free person it would be De Jure ownership.

>>1170209
So you don't believe anything illegal can happen? If it happens, then it's not illegal? If I take your TV, it's not legally your TV, it's my TV, because I took it according to my own law?

Yes, you can look at it that way, but it makes the terms de facto and de jure completely useless.

>>1170212
>So you don't believe anything illegal can happen? If it happens, then it's not illegal? If I take your TV, it's not legally your TV, it's my TV, because I took it according to my own law?
Then I would take your life, because according to my own law, people who willingly take actions of aggression towards me and I will willingly act my enforcement of the law I made on my land that I declared by the right vested in me, Anon, owns this land.
>Yes, you can look at it that way, but it makes the terms de facto and de jure completely useless.
You mean it bonds, each person is each state, and the only thing that becomes real is the people being individuals and working together in alliances, not in a society type.

>>1170221
>Then I would take your life,
Not if you're not home

>>1170225
>Not if you're not home
But I'm always home. I don't leave because of pieces of shit like you who want to steal from righteous people who want to stay inside.

>>1170228
You need to get out more, anon. A tv is not worth it.

>>1170234
All I'm hearing is that people like you who want to steal my shit that I declared is mine.

>>1170242
Yes but I was talking hypothetically. I would never steal your TV even if I could get away with it because that's wrong.

>>1170249
>I would never steal your TV even if I could get away with it because that's wrong.
Because it's a sin. A sin marks your soul. And something something something.

>>1170254
Just get out of the house. Ask a pretty girl out. Have fun. Even if your tv gets stolen, you'll still be happier for it.

>>1170269
>Just get out of the house. Ask a pretty girl out.
Are you implying I have any social skills?
>said the 'woman'

>>1169370
He's basically Emerson, if Emerson had autism.

>>1170280
Well if you don't have skills, it's because you haven't practiced enough

>>1170292
But I don't wanna get bullied by people who want to exploit me, and treat me like shit.

>>1170295
Happens to all of us, it's part of life.

>>1170298
I would rather be a recluse and try to study shit so I can be a missionary and help spread the word of God.

>>1170306
That's noble, but if it's your goal, you can't call thieves pieces of shit or be attached to your material goods.

>>1170311
>you can't call thieves pieces of shit
But I just did. I'm not getting fucked over by people who want to abuse me.

>>1170314
Christ was.

>>1170318
And am I Christ?

>>1170321
You clearly love him if you want to be a missionary, and if you love him then you desire to be more like him.

>>1170341
>and if you love him then you desire to be more like him
But I wanna marry.

>>1170348
Jesus didn't say there is anything wrong with marriage, just divorce.

>>1170321
Well, you want a job where you work as a representative of him to the world. To be effective, you must walk the walk.

>>1170352
But Jesus never married. Hint. Hint.
>>1170354
>To be effective, you must walk the walk.
But I can talk the talk and tell people why they should convert.

>>1170358
>But Jesus never married. Hint. Hint.
And you have to take a vow of chastity if you want to be a monk. But didn't command this of his followers, even though it is a very admirable thing

>>1169370

Somebody who wrote a 370 page book that could be condensed into "I can do what the fuck ever I want and fuck everyone else."

>>1170021
He didn't contend that you should treat human beings as property, he contended that you should treat all things as property (which includes human beings). But even at that, the notion of "property" in the context of his book can be better understood as "how it is of interest to you." He didn't believe you naturally owned the whole of the universe, because that's fucking idiotic, but instead that you should consider the whole of the universe strictly in how it is in relation to you.

>>1170036
Yes, even then. There's a reason he said you can only own that which you have the strength to keep.

I hate you. I legitimately fucking hate you. You goddamn worthless cunt. You do nothing but butcher and shitpost, and make this board worse just by existing.

>>1170958
>Yes even then.

More aptly, your property does not become something of substance because it is "yours" and attempting anything relating to property that makes the property something sacred or puts it ahead of yourself would still be stupid (for instance, devoting your life to acquiring wealth and ruining your well-being in the process, or throwing your life away over your wallet).

File: df man.png (5KB, 387x276px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 387x276px

>half the posts in thread is from that one tripfag

I filtered him when /his/ was new, can't remember why, but i trust the judgement of my former self.

>>1170958
So if someone pulled a gun on Mr. Spook he'd applaud the man for taking what is his and give whatever it is he wanted?

For an anarchist he sure does encourage totalitarian "might is right" amorality.

>>1170986
Not in the slightest. He would defend his property, and hope others would assist in doing so.

He outright says that cooperation and altruism are vital to the pursuit of your self interest, but he also didn't deny the simple facts of life as a lot of anarchists do (it's worth noting he never called himself as such): might makes reality. If someone is strong enough to do something and has the desire to do so, it will be done, and no pretensions of morality or right will stop them.

File: 1463653167502.jpg (25KB, 400x164px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x164px

>>1170974

Hourly reminder

>>1170958
>I hate you. I legitimately fucking hate you. You goddamn worthless cunt. You do nothing but butcher and shitpost, and make this board worse just by existing.
tripfagging is a spook

>>1170178
>>1170958

>>1170997
So what would he consider something like a criminal giving up crime after finding religion for example?

>>1171023
He'd probably consider their reasoning for doing so foolish if they were holding religion as something ahead of themselves. But giving up crime to pursue something they find emotionally or spiritually fulfilling is entirely within the scope of his thinking, he wasn't really opposed to any idea, so long as you pursued it for yourself, rather than attempting to serve it.

The best summation I could give there would be that ideas are tools to be utilized, rather than things to served.

>>1171022
I know that, you fucking imbecile. I stand by what I said.

related music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x4weajfqm0

there est thou answer

>>1171041
Well, what you said is just a reiteration of what I said, yet you're pouring all kinds of abuse on me

>>1171045
>yet you're pouring all kinds of abuse on me

Because you constantly misrepresent ideals in a continual attempt to smear literally anything that isn't Orthodox Christianity here. For instance you say he suggested treating people as property in a blatant bid to get an emotional kneejerk out of people without actually explaining what that means in the context of his philosophy.

>>1171051
Stirner actually does suggest you treat people like property. He doesn't believe anyone has rights. He himself says he wouldn't torture people (for the same reasons that might be applied to a dog, which is also property), but he never suggests for others not to if that is how they'd like to treat their property.

>>1171051
Questions, how does this differ from nihilism?

>>1171064
Stirner is generally regarded as one of the most comprehensive nihilist thinkers

>>1171058
Again, he suggests treating all things as your property. People are not special here (hence why I think this is a cheap ploy on your part to get a kneejerk, because you're a cunt). Further, the notion of property is vastly different, treating people as they are of interest to you is not the same as treating them as though you actually own them (as ownership is itself a meaningless concept beyond "has the strength to possess it" in Stirner's thinking).

>>1171064
It's a form of nihilism. Specifically existential and moral nihilism. Though believing there to be a meaning to existence or morals is not out of the picture.

>>1171071
I thought it seemed similar, thanks for the confirmation

>>1171106
>believing there to be morals is not out of the picture

Would it be something like the character Rorschach in Watchmen?

>>1171106
>Specifically existential and moral nihilism
As well as nihilism toward families, nations, rights, etc.

>Though believing there to be a meaning to existence or morals is not out of the picture.
Not so long as they are completely mutable and up to oneself and can be changed at whim. The moment you start using them to judge yourself, instead of yourself to judge them, they are out of the picture.

File: 1463785532412.png (626KB, 645x909px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 645x909px

>If reason rules, then the person succumbs
What did he mean by this?

>>1171164
Girls just wanna have fun

>>1171164
The quote that is a few sentances later helps explain it.

>The liberals are zealots, not exactly for the faith, for God, but certainly for reason, their master. They brook no lack of breeding, and therefore no self-development and self- determination; they play the guardian as effectively as the most absolute rulers.

tldr its talking about reason becoming a spook and commenting on liberals

>>1169370
>Who is this odd fellow
Probably the most uncompromising egoist thinker there has ever been, he is kind of like what parmenidies is to rationalism or heraclitus is to change.

>keep posting him on various boards?
He is very mememetic in his life and teachings

>>1170125
>Isn't that contradictory? I'm not being taught, I'm being told by the system (that being the anarchist) that I need to read his bullshit to understand what he believes to be the human mind? I don't buy it.

There is no compulsion or involuntary hirearchy being imposed on you here so there is no contradiction.

>I'm being told by the system (that being the anarchist) that I need to read his bullshit to understand what he believes to be the human mind?

One poster on an anonymous image broad is hardly a system. Like in the art school there is no "need" for you to do anything, if you believe you can get a satisfactory understanding of him without reading that then go right ahead but dont be surprised or indignant when your understanding is different to others.

File: sd.png (76KB, 1017x709px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1017x709px

>>1170632
Not really just because you do not subjugate yourself to a spook or fixed idea doesnt automatically give you power act on it.

>fuck everyone else."
Pic related being an a dogmatic assohole is spooky

>>1171119
Well, no. They'd be ultimately whatever you considered to be good, and their purpose would be to provide you a lens through which to view yourself and the world around you. The main thing is they'd never be "fixed" morals. What Stirner proposes for morality is basically tearing the whole system down, discarding its baggage and chaff, and then never allowing it to become built up like that again. This would mean that morality would have to be a personal journey of continual growth and change.

>>1171129
Actually, you can totally use them to judge yourself. Using morals to better yourself is still within his thinking, the standard should just serve a purpose of actually bettering you, rather than trying to serve the morals themselves.

Morals as I see them serve two main purposes, exalting yourself (or the person you wish to be) and determining what your ideal world would look like, and they can still fill both of these functions in Stirner's thinking. Just because he's not proposing considering yourself "the worst of sinners" and wallowing in your immorality as a means of proving yourself the most moral doesn't mean you can't still be moral.

>>1173104
For Stirner, if "bettering yourself" beings becoming more "good", it's not egoist. He says in his initial definition of "spooks" that good and evil are spooks. If you mean things like a quota of push ups every day, okay, but that's not really morality.

>>1173116
Again, not really. Good is whatever you make of it. You could become more "good" if that is what pleases, but you would likewise operate from an understanding that it is for your own benefit. Serving in the soup kitchen because you feel this is a good thing to be doing and that fills you with happiness is entirely reasonable.

Frankly, you sound like one of those obnoxious cunts (oh wait, look who I'm talking to) that thinks you can't be moral without religion.

>>1173116
It's more about what you consider good. If adhering to some morals will help you become the person you want to be, that's fine as long as you're using them as a tool and not an ends unto themselves.

>>1173162
"Good" is explicitly a spook.

Regarding spooks
>The essences which are deduced from some appearances are the evil essences, and conversely from others the good. The essence of human feeling, e.g., is love; the essence of human will is the good; that of one’s thinking, the true, etc.

>>1173173
Oh, so you're descending into spookposting territory are you?

Good is only a spook if you attempt to place it ahead of yourself and subjugate your own ego in the process. Good can easily be used to serve your ego.

He outlines in Stirner's Critics that he's not opposed to any idea so long as it is not held as sacred and unchanging. So you could still use the concept of good to evaluate your own behaviour and better yourself, you just couldn't hold it as immutable concept greater than you.

>>1173189
You can use the concept of good purely as a figure of speech or poetically. Believing good exists in any more concrete sense violates the philosophy.

>>1173194
You can believe good exists in an entirely subjective sense, and that has been my point from the outset. But what kind of idiotic fool would believe good exists in an objective sense?

No, it's not compatible with Christianity, get over it and stop shitposting any time this man's name is mentioned.

>>1169370

The guy whose philosophy the avg person talks about when they think they are talking about Nietzche

>>1173224

Someone should tell Plato the bad news

>>1173247
He's dead nigga.

>>1170195
>keep me in chains and force me to...
kinky orthogirl :^)

>>1173323
>girl

>>1173331
Don't shatter my dreams. ;-;

>>1173331
is constantine not actually a girl? I've heard both that constantine is a tranny and that constantine took the trip from a tranny. get me up to date on the tripfag lore

A philosopher who makes an interesting conversation piece.

File: 1456717327217.gif (1MB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x213px

>>1173251

>>1173352
Pretty sure they're a dude, and about 20% sure they're the same person who used to post as Feminister, given their arrogance, stupidity and narcissism.

>>1173360
>Feminister
Who? That sounds awfully protestant.

>>1173360
arrogance, stupidity and narcissism are pretty common for /his/

>>1171767
What does Stirner think of people who lack empathy or sadists?

Can someone explain exactly what a spook is?

File: 1428826849037.png (503KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 500x667px

>>1175045
Everything you believe in or hold dear :^)

>>1175052
So, is a spook a social construct?

ITT: butthurt libertarians and commies keep proving that stirner was the biggest troll in history

>>1175058
It can be. It can also be an individual construct. It's anything the ego creates that is seperate from itself.

Do you need to read him in german to really appreciate him?

>>1175072
What do you mean "separate from itself"?

Why is Stirner considered a meme?
The beliefs he espouses actually seem pretty reasonable.

>>1170013
everything engels drew of or wrote about him made him look like a total badass

>>1175143
spook is a funny word

>>1175145
Maybe he had a mancrush on him.

>>1175143
Something can be reasonable and also ripe for memehood.

>>1175072
>>1175085
It's not just that. Any idea has potential to be a spook. A spook is any sort of idea (including the idea of people or things) that you attempt to serve as though it were an entity, giving it a sense of false life by allowing it to possess you. Ideas are not inherently spooks, provided they're something that serves you, rather than things you attempt to serve.

>>1175177
How can I tell if I'm serving it or it's serving me?

Do you have example where nationalistic feelings would not be spook?

>>1175178
You can only tell things like that through introspection and evaluation. Keep yourself aware of what you believe and why you believe in it.

As for nationalistic feelings, favouring the well-being of people that share linguistic and cultural ties to you would be entirely reasonable in his thinking, but he would likely advise against subscribing to any sort of ideology that could wind up trapping you within it.

His view on social organization is that it should only exist so long as it serve the interests of all of its members. He called this a union of egoists.

>>1175196
Would a stirnerite preach this or try and use spooks to manipulate others according to his ego?

>>1175297
They'd approach it however they see fit. Stirner definitely isn't a philosopher of oughts. Even his brand of egoism is never presented as an ought, just as a "hey, if you want to be intellectually consistent and value your autonomy, consider this."

>>1175302
I'm liking this stirner, seems to have a fix on things.
What do you think of critique in The German Ideology?

>>1175040
Pretty sure his opinion on sociopaths and psycopaths would be the same as everyone else's. The opinion that they're hideous people who need to fuck off.

>>1175381
Not guy you're replying to, but it was an excellent critique of arguments that Stirner never made.

File: Look at them; All Propertity.png (32KB, 608x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 608x480px

>tfw there are still things you need to assert control over

This is a cool thread
Imma go read Stirner

>>1176171
Who's the giant near the chandelier?

File: 12321186_252434898425810_5783706759054118893_n.png (19KB, 680x604px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 680x604px

>>1169370
A pretentious fag who has contributed to one of the most perverse and destructive ideas so far. He is followed mostly by other pretentious and self-proclaimed intellectuals like The Amazing Atheist.
People who follow Stirner like to throw out useless phrases such as
>Voting doesn't matter, we're fucked anyway
>I don't care what you do or think(as long as you're not homophobic or racist of course)
>I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it(unless it is hate speech ofc)
>lol religious people are so dumb, they believe in a fairytale and hear voices in their head XXXXDD
Hobbies include
>smoking weed
>computer games
>Basic philosophic thinking such as "what is truly reality maaaaaaaan, how can you tell if X is real maaaaan" and basic atheistic phrases
>he pretends that he likes science, but never dares to implement any of it into his philosophical thinking(i.e. nature/nurture debate)
He is not hard to find, go to the local skinny loner at your local college(usually found in the biology department) if you want to know more about Stirner and become the average boring childless freak while you bitch about people who decided to be normal and have them.

File: 1431516016015.png (58KB, 636x674px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 636x674px

>>1177132
I cant believe im seeing someone spooked about stirner.

File: 1463597962556.gif (3MB, 173x267px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 173x267px

>>1177132

>all these spooks!
>I can't even hold them they're so many of them!
>there must be a clearance sale of spooks somewhere or something!

>>1177192
>>1177184
Your life is a spook. Let me fight the spook by forcing you into a gas chamber

>>1177204

>being this triggered by someone making you aware that literally everything you believe in is a spook

Ouch. I hope your butt isn't broken from all the hurts that now reside in it

Why did Stirner write the ego and his own if it wasn't for a spook?

>>1177394
What spook would he be writing it for?

File: 1459339260904.png (6KB, 419x249px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 419x249px

>>1169370

A virulent racist who people drastically misinterpreted. He was saying that all bad things are caused by blacks but because Engels was an esoteric retard he kept looking for meaning behind Stirner calling all things bad 'spooks' and it got waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of hand.

According to Engels, his last words were 'the only good nigger is a dead nigger' which was interpreted to mean that morality is dead and God doesn't exist.

Engels was a bit of a retard tbph.

>>1169370
absolute spookman

>>1175381
It generally misses the point of Stirner's work and doesn't seem to grasp that Marx and Stirner's ideals aren't really all that at odds. The general idea of "he doesn't really address the material side of things" is accurate, but irrelevant.

>>1177394
Pride, entertainment, to make them fucking left-Hegelians shut the fuck up (keep in mind that the Ego and Its Own was largely about trashing the fuck out of them). Possibly a spook as well, he admitted to being possessed by some of his own.

Also, I think the left-Hegelians were basically the new atheists of their day.

>>1175381
It raises some legitimate concerns but it's no CoPR

>>1177232
He managed to fit enough ghosts up there, I'm sure he'll be fine,

>>1177633
Keep in mind, Stirner didn't say spooks are necessarily bad, and that purging them is an absolute good. That's a spook too, my property.

You're fully free to construct spooks you wish to have fun with.

>>1177659
Of course. As was said earlier in the thread, he suggested ridding yourself of such things as a means to maintain intellectual consistency and personal autonomy, but that only matters if you value those things.

I've seen some here argue that this part of his philosophy makes it irrelevant, but I couldn't disagree more, as I feel his philosophy provides an excellent bedrock from which to build ideals and values that can be held with a genuine, egoistic sincerity.

What would Saint Max think about Ayn Rand?

File: stirner8.jpg (71KB, 607x504px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 607x504px

>>1178840

File: 6e9.png (633KB, 600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 600x1000px

>>1177132
Believing in a 2,000 year old book on insane and unscientific fantasy's, written by sand niggers no less, is retarded. Christ-cuck detected.

>>1177394
>>1177400
>>1177633

Why dont you ask Stirner?

>Let us choose another convenient example. I see how men are fretted in dark superstition by a swarm of ghosts. If to the extent of my powers I let a bit of daylight fall in on the nocturnal spookery, is it perchance because love to you inspires this in me? Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me.

>>1177641
>>1175750

What arguments does it actually make?

>>1177641
>CoPR
What's this?

>>1179303
>No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world
I'm dumb what did he mean?

>>1179335
Its just him wanting his thoughts to be known. Ie they no longer just exist in his head but in books and in other people

File: s1.jpg (33KB, 523x452px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 523x452px

>>1179303
>even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it.

>>1179332
Critique of pure reason

File: 1461354821360.jpg (76KB, 594x395px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 594x395px

>>1177132

Why is stirner posting so funny?

File: ss.jpg (37KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x640px

>>1177132

File: 1448655864935.png (9KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 640x400px

>>1178840

>Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles. This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

Were they just lazy NEETs?

>>1177132
You know that nobody in the real world has actually read Stirner, and most of people here are fucking Stirnerposters which just meme.
Stirner never in his book said "le religion is stupid", he just denied it saying that you can't own religion.
What did you meant was centrist atheism or Randians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObnBHMzIQ_A
Tho I hope you just baited me.

File: nietzschesdeathmask.jpg (16KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x300px

I read in a Nietzsche biography, that he wrote in a letter about Stirner.

I cannot remember exactly but talked about how he found himself connected to Stirner even though it was clearly emberessing him but did still privately admit to his friend.

A reason why he was ashamed of Stirner is because Stirner was heavily criticized back then. Which I dont really understood because so was Nietzsche aswell. Maybe he simply didnt like his depth.

Sorry for the english knowledge.

File: 1445294249447.gif (11KB, 198x239px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 198x239px

>>1179543
well maybe if those customers dealt with their spooks

>>1179560
So why does he hate them? Are they not "ruthless to everyone"?

>>1179543
>>Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles. This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

This is a myth, he didnt start a milk shop what he did was try and centralize milk distribution by creating one main warehouse instead of having it delivered by farmers.

He translated economic works for a living indeed his translation of the wealth of nations was the first decent one and used as the standard for the next 100 years.

>>1179610
It seemed dubious.
What's the source of your info, his biography?

>>1179573
>A reason why he was ashamed of Stirner is because Stirner was heavily criticized back then

That seems a bit unlikely given that Stirner faded so quickly into obscurity. Even in his own life time Stirner was largely forgotten and at his peak only got a handful of reviews.

>>1179614
Which part the warehouse or the wealth of nations translation part?

>>1179631
Both.

>>1179625
That wasnt my personal opinion but the reason the author of the biography gave. I know shit about Stirners actual past.

Just that Nietzsche was ashamed of admitting he liked him somewhere. The chapter was him writing letters about more important people like Wagner or Goethe, but was clearly ashamed of bringing the name "Stirner" up.

>>1179637
For the warehouse part it was on page 186-7 of his biography

For the translation part that was at page 185 however its also at:

the fourth paragraph of

>http://eet.pixel-online.org/files/research_papers/GE/German%20editions%20of%20Smith's%20Wealth%20of%20Nations.pdf

>>1179648
Ah much clearer now

>>1179654
danke

File: Iamthemilkman.jpg (274KB, 581x654px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 581x654px

>>1179654

File: vnVZ7R1.png (301KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 600x338px

>>1179665
>which to many appeared as a joke and yet was intended so desperately seriously
Poor stirner.

>>1179678
>Poor stirner.
Yeah it does seem like the meme life chose him and not the other way around

Pic related is just stirner posting and doesn't reflect stirner correct?
The feminist was just accusing anon of being spooked by the patriarchy right?
Is the feminist haunted by the patriarchy? I feel she is haunted by feminism which she is trying to serve by destroying the spook of the patriarchy.
Spook on spook violence.

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 1.57.12 AM.png (65KB, 975x290px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 975x290px

>>1179703
Oops.

>>1179703
Adding on, can an idea you oppose haunt you?

>>1179705
>>1179703
what is actually not a spook?

De spoogman

>>1179750
An idea that serves you?

>>1179703
>Pic related is just stirner posting and doesn't reflect stirner correct?

It crudely does. Power for his is certainly something that exists (and in this case it is claimed that it is be used to oppress people) However the egoist would probably point out how most of the suffering and distress comes not from this abuse of power but their subjugation to spooks.

>Is the feminist haunted by the patriarchy? I feel she is haunted by feminism which she is trying to serve by destroying the spook of the patriarchy.

I would see her as being haunted by feminism or to go beyond that haunted by "justice" or the "good" her views on the patriarchy merely stem from this, in the same way someone might feel about sin not because it is sacred but because of their loyalty to piety/ the good.

If you want to see a good example of spooky feminism this quote is probably the clearest example.

"Feminism is about the collective liberation of women as a social class. Feminism is not about personal choice."

Here you have you ideology and illusory categories being held above the individual

>Spook on spook violence.

The thing is you cant harm spooks and generally just end up attacking people and property. This is the grand irony of ideological crusades.

>>1179711
>Adding on, can an idea you oppose haunt you?

When it comes to issues like that I always saw it more as a consequence of another more foundational spook. Kind of like the ones I discussed in >>1179760.

Still a good measure is to simply look at it in relation to the individual, does it have a sacred relationship with it being higher than the individual? Are they expected to place the interests of that idea above their own?

If so then its probably spooky.

>>1179757
So a spook is not a spook?

Whats the compass that guides oneself?

File: chaostirnism.jpg (253KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1920x1080px

Chaostirnerism is the future.

>>1179760
Okay. I guess part of my question was that dismissing her opposition to the patriarchy simply because it is a spook seems silly.
Religion/god is a spook but the material impact of it could benefit certain people more etc. Instead of claiming patriarchy is spook seems like you would attack the spooks that she is likely holding above herself.

>>1179769
Makes sense.

>>1179757
I think it would be more accurate to say an idea that you serve rather than the opposite way around, to the point where you would still wish to serve and live for it even if it ceased to bring benefit to you.

>>1179774
>Whats the compass that guides oneself?

The creative nothing - the unique ones own internal compass.

>>1179802
He said not a spook though.

>>1179802
>The creative nothing - the unique ones own internal compass.
>pseudonature is the guide, but if this is the case you cannot externalize and project yourself since you are already spooked
How does this even solve the question?

>>1179786
>Okay. I guess part of my question was that dismissing her opposition to the patriarchy simply because it is a spook seems silly.

Its silly in the same way that dismissing an argument over referees decision by pointing out the rules are made up is.

>Religion/god is a spook but the material impact of it could benefit certain people more etc.

Of course but just a diversion here God isn't inherently a spook in the sense that a creator can exist without necessarily requiring yourself to subjugate yourself to it.

> Instead of claiming patriarchy is spook seems like you would attack the spooks that she is likely holding above herself.

Yeah with the significance here being that you can smash the legitimacy of normative claims (ie that feminism ought to be adhered to by others)

Why should you bend to the will of the ghosts that possess her? If you feel like futhering the cause of women you will do for however long and in whatever way you desire but nothing beyond that and there is nothing to preventing from renouncing those actions and doing the opposite.

File: chaostirnerism 2.png (409KB, 1752x828px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1752x828px

Chaostirnerism is the present...

>>1179809
My mistake, Im so used to seeing the other question I answered reflexively

>>1179821
>How does this even solve the question?
Its Stirners way of saying "be authentic" whether that means wearing MLP shirts, selling insurance policies or being a stay at home mum/dad.

Looking at your values and actions and seeing what motivates them is how you distinguish between them. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy would probably also help a fair bit here

>>1179842
And idea that patriarchy is spook thus it doesn't exist seems odd also. The state is a spook but it also exists right? If someone does something in opposition to the state you can't know they are haunted unless you know their motivations for opposing the state correct?
>Why should you bend to the will of the ghosts that possess her?
Yes, and in case of her being motivated not by a spook but by her own ego(?) if you agreed* you would be holding her ego above yours and so it would be a spook haunting you?
*assuming you didn't agree out of your egoistic desire

>>1179866
>And idea that patriarchy is spook thus it doesn't exist seems odd also. The state is a spook but it also exists right?

The term spook is a nice and illustrative one because like ghosts they can only "exist" when they "possess" people. The state wont harm you but an individual with a badge will.

>If someone does something in opposition to the state you can't know they are haunted unless you know their motivations for opposing the state correct?

Yes, and the same can be said for those who do things in support of the state. Think of the person who joins the military out of desire to kill people or travel.

>Yes, and in case of her being motivated not by a spook but by her own ego(?) if you agreed* you would be holding her ego above yours and so it would be a spook haunting you?

Exactly which is why people hate Stirner because he smashes appeals to a higher source of legitimacy and leaves them on equal ground.

File: chaohomostirnerism.png (325KB, 1728x690px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1728x690px

>>1179866
honestly man just forget about women theyre all spooked as fuk
and the state is just an organization that enforces its rules and desires with violence, everyone should oppose it

til ofc their rules benefit you am i right or am i right

>>1179843
What is the source of that text?

>>1179906
>everyone should oppose it
You won't spook me this time.

File: Dressing the wounded during a gas attack.jpg (279KB, 468x628px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 468x628px

>>1179910
austin osman spare surrealist painter and occultist, the influence of stirner permeates his work
http://hermetic.com/spare/focus_life.html

>>1179921
im just fucking around nice job catching a normative statement though david :0)

>>1179857
>Looking at your values and actions and seeing what motivates them is how you distinguish between them. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy would probably also help a fair bit here
How can you tell if you yourself like something and its not an spook that has been imparted by something or someone?

>>1179954
Introspection and taking your best guess. Try your best to figure out what you believe and why you believe it. But remember, that you don't need to be free of spooks, and attempting to create some sort of categorical imperative out of it would be hilariously contradictory.

>>1179959
how is don't follow spooks not a categorical imperative?

How can you figure out by yourself what comes before consciousness, before the man?

To be spook free you would need to know ALL spooks

>>1179959
When described this way it just sounds like practical advice to live better or something.
Why did his book annoy his peers and marx so much?

>>1179965
>To be spook free you would need to know ALL spooks
Why?

>>1179966
Because he took all moral imperatives and stripped them of their supposedly inherent legitimacy, which left their adoption a matter of personal preference, leaving many ideological systems completely without a leg to stand on (left-Hegelianism was more or less killed by him, it's worth noting).

Oddly, Marx's was probably the least affected since it focused on a material dialectic conflict rather than a strictly ideological premise.

>>1179970
Because you have to have full control over yourself and not be influenced by anything

People who are spooked aren't aware of it so even if you think you are spook free you might not be

in fact the whole concept of spooks is self contradictory

poor poor anons, make a spook out of spookcatching and a blame stirner for it..?

File: and a.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

>>1179987
>and a

File: 1460670918642.jpg (55KB, 500x473px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x473px

a-am I a spook?

>>1179976
How's it contradictory?

>>1180000
No, probably not.

File: KKK-2.jpg (20KB, 603x453px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 603x453px

>>1180000
indeed you are boy, now get the fuck out

>>1179954
Stirner doesn't go much into that however I think CBT is still the best bet.

>>1180003
>>1179965

>how is don't follow spooks not a categorical imperative?

>>1180010
>CBT
Pure ideology.

>>1180012
Because egoism is never presented as an ought within his system. He suggests it as a means to maintain intellectual consistency and personal autonomy, but it's only worth your time if you consider those worthwhile things.

>>1180017
How is egoism not a spook? Its an emotion which you didn't choose

>>1180026
>How is egoism not a spook?

How do you place yourself above yourself?

>>1180026
Because you can't serve yourself ahead of yourself. An idea only becomes a spook when you attempt to give it life by allowing it to possess you.

>>1180034
Very carefully.

>>1180035
So you are naturally born cut off from everything even whatever makes us human including emotions (spooks) like ego but at the same time you are born with ego that gets corrupted

How does it work, when does yourself start? When does ego comes to be? How does ego comes to be?

>>1180026
Egoism can be presented as a spook for general instances, but not if you choose your egoism actively and voluntarily. In that case, you consider your own opinion above the majority or whoever you don't value enough.

If that case of chosen egoism happens, he, the one who puts himself over you, -tries- to think choices through his own end while beleaving it is its own end.

>>1180080
>but not if you choose your egoism actively and voluntarily.
So is he essentially saying you have to not to believe in spooks by believing in a spook that chose itself?

>>1180087
No, he dismembers and reformes spooks until he can pull actual use out of it. As he did with religion and general socialism. While being haunted from those, he turned them into nihilism and egoism.

In other words, if you are possessed by a spook, your goal lies in turning your spook to a personal value or even virtue.

>>1180104
How can you do that if the spook comes before yourself?

what should i read to understand stirners works?

as in, to get context of philosophical thought at his time, and maybe anything discussing/debating his actual words?

i'm afraid to say all i know about this man is via /lit/ and /his/ memes

>>1180123
read his wikiquotes page

>>1180106
With bravery, of dealing with your own spooks

>>1180123
Buy his book and read it

>>1180135
how can you deal with a spook you can't interact with

The being is egoism and you are its spook

and you haven't explained from where egoism comes from

File: 1440907812811.jpg (126KB, 801x1000px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 801x1000px

>>1180144
Shut up nerd, I have milk to sell!

>>1180144
Do I look like an official videogame guide to you?

Solve the riddle yourself

Stirners chosen egoism isnt a spook anymore, it became a tool of that what was left after he dealt with his spook.

>>1180157
Why would the ego lose control of itself

>>1180173
Where does this question come from?

Through nurture, I guess.

Just as parents who are nurturing their children.

>>1180047
>So you are naturally born cut off from everything even whatever makes us human including emotions (spooks) like ego but at the same time you are born with ego that gets corrupted

Emotions arent spooks likewise the idea that ego or self is somehow corrupted is not a part of his thought.

>How does it work, when does yourself start? When does ego comes to be? How does ego comes to be?

This is a trickier issue and one that im currently working on. At the current stage the unique one (because Stirner doesnt actually use the term ego or self) is what he refers to the creative nothing. He calls it the creative nothing because nothing precedes it and is unique to the point of being beyond the ability to describe adequately. I think this is tied to his view on individual experience being the starting point of all knowledge.

There are better anons when it comes to answering this though

>>1180123
>what should i read to understand stirners works?

To add to what that anon said

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Max_Stirner

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/

>maybe anything discussing/debating his actual words?

Do you have a membership in university library? There are very very few works that deal with his ideas.

>>1180144
>how can you deal with a spook you can't interact with

Cognitive behavioral therapy, learn to separate your thought and motivations to see those which are indigenous and those which are not and realise that this is an ongoing process and not a once off for the unique one isnt necessarily static.

Here is a nice place to start.

>>1180173
>Why would the ego lose control of itself
I think it might be one of Stirners points that the ego never looses control of itself only that it gets confused, hence we always have the agency to free ourseleves

>>1180314
Not him but I do have access to library.

>>1180334
Stop shilling cbt you jew, at least be hip and shill mindfulness.

File: 1458765087336.jpg (56KB, 412x680px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 412x680px

Max Stirner is getting an anime!

>>1180357
In that case use your data base to look up articles on him as they seem to be the only real source of new information and discussion on him outside of his biography.

Still your library might have it though mine dosent and that is max stirner's dialectical egoism by Welsh that seems to have decent reviews.

Article wise theres a decent amount of material on Stirner and the Left Heglians if you want to understand his context better.

Theres also some odd ones like a paper on Stirner and the Jewish question or Stirner and Finnigans wake.

I could list some titles however I not in a position to vouch for their quality outside of them being peer reviewed.

>>1180368
Once I can draw well I'll make stirner doujinshi about his day to day life and adventures.

>>1180359
>Stop shilling cbt you jew, at least be hip and shill mindfulness.

Its too broad a term and emotionally charged term for people to take seriously by my estimation. Whilst CBT is probably the shortest and clearest way of bringing up those principles in a way that wont cause people to glaze over

>>1180368
>>1180375
Will there be pandering to otaku fetishes, pointless overly dramatic fighting scenes, mechas and other anime/manga cliche stuff added?

File: fef66d3a2d281653f6b1b6d87eb48ae9.jpg (172KB, 736x1057px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 736x1057px

>>1180405
I like to imagine detailed art contrasted with engel's caricature of stirner when he says something is a spook.
Like pic.

post rare stirners

File: stirner10.jpg (324KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1600x1200px

>>1180627

These forced Stirner memes are getting out of hand and ridiculous

File: 1451330790154.jpg (144KB, 697x398px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 697x398px

>>1180911
Are they though

>>1180921
They unquestionably are.

The only thing you will accomplish is Stirner becomming an internet meme which represents nihilistic fedora wearing nu-males.

Jokes are never a good way to appreciate serious matter. The opposite will happen.

>>1179711
I would suggest yes.
>Our atheists are pious people
If religion or the patriarchy are a spook then defining yourself-putting the ideas ahead of yourself- as the opposing ideology is also spooky.
Or perhaps more simply, opposing an idea is also an idea so is of course a spook if you treat it that way.

>>1180921
Do you have the original of this without the post?

File: 1462535948109.jpg (163KB, 700x609px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 700x609px

>>1180000
Quads.

Kek says yes.

File: ego.jpg (22KB, 297x232px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 297x232px

>>1180215
>Emotions arent spooks likewise the idea that ego or self is somehow corrupted is not a part of his thought.
so he cheated then

>>1180334
You can't do that when it predates yourself

>>1181184
but the "ego" is me, I am myself.

>>1181191
exactly

you are its spook

>>1181197
I think you are willfully misunderstand what Stirner calls(in translation) the ego.

>>1181217
Up until y ou can come up with an explanation to these questions it will remain self contradictory

>>1180047

>How does it work, when does yourself start? When does ego comes to be? How does ego comes to be?

The Ego predates you and controls you

Whenever you do anything it is going to be by its command

which leads to the paradox


>>1179965

>how is don't follow spooks not a categorical imperative?

>>1181243
But your ego is the core of you, so you control yourself.

>>1181307
So a spook is your core and it tells you not to follow other spooks

>>1177633
>Also, I think the left-Hegelians were basically the new atheists of their day
absofuckinglutely

>>1181310
Following from that, that means that people are spooks.

>>1181601
>>1181197

>>1180930
It's already started to have a negative effect. I've already seen people try to use the concept of spooks to justify positivism (which cannot be compatible with the concept of the Unique One). It's people hearing an idea which they think sounds cool and using it without knowing what the arguments supporting it are. They take concepts that had a clear meaning and turn them into meaningless buzz words.

I've also seen plenty of people that use the word "spook" in an arguement and will admit they never read a word of the man (and will probably justify it by saying "philosophy is a spook" or some other anti-intellectual crap).

The end result is it actually reduces the legitimacy of Stirner since you know how have to separate the genuine Stirner from the cancerous meme version of him.

Never expose philosophy to morons, it won't make them smarter. They won't read, they won't contextualize. They will just get arrogant and more stupid. "I learned a new word to help me win arguments on the interwebz"

>>1182059
There is a ton of spooks here

>>1182059
>Never expose philosophy to morons
So basically delete /his/ or ban all discussion on philosophy?

>>1182074
The only way to have philosophical discussion on an open forum is to have a center level of elitism and mock, ignore, or otherwise disregard the stupid posts.

If you look at the patterns of other boards this is what they had to get a chance of a decent discussion. Back when the show Naruto was super popular with stupid anime, /a/ adopted a policy where if you even mentioned it you would get mocked or ignored. This was to guard against bad-discussions. The show could only be discussed under a limited situation, only the manga could be discussed and only on the day where a new chapter was released: discuss sensative things online in the method that minimizes shit-posting.

So a good policy would be if someone is outing themself as being an idiot ("ego is a spook", positivist posters, or other nonsense) the only way to maintain a good discussion is to ignore them or dismiss them. It will ultimatly be better for both parties. Constantine would be much happier if he/she never got into discussions about philosophy and the board would be less shitty.

File: maxstirner.jpg (33KB, 477x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 477x500px

>>1182116
>ego
>not a spook

>>1182139
Thats not even a joke since his excuse is that he doesn't know or as he says creative nothing

File: 1461498450937.png (254KB, 1061x958px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1061x958px

>>1182195

File: 1462312247800.jpg (49KB, 677x771px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 677x771px

>>1180368
>>1180375
>>1180405
you're already mine

>>1182116
I agree with you on some points. But I also feel that I would never know about Stirner without this meme. Maybe I'm a moron and reading Stirner will inevitably lead to misunderstanding, but I AM considering reading it after this meme.

Of course it isn't particulary good that now any discussion of Stirner will lead to excessive meming.

>>1182274
>memeing
Shilling you meant

File: 9hrvkRn.jpg (21KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x500px

>>1182288
>implying you can sell me something i already own

>>1182298

>implying you can sell me something i already own
sure thing shill

>>1182274

>But I also feel that I would never know about Stirner without this meme.

>>1182316
You speak in spooks

>>1182328
You speak in shill

File: 150px-Stirner02.jpg (15KB, 150x387px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 150x387px

>>1182331

>>1182274
I think most of us enter philosophy on shaky grounds unless you happen to go to a very nice university. My own entry was pretty lame.

I am not saying we should never discuss Stirner on a public forum but we need to do it in a way where we are dismissive towards people that clearly do not know a thing. People that cannot contribute can still read the discussion.

There is however nothing you can do, short of shutting down /his/ that would prevent people that should never read philosophy from being exposed to it. Trying "force" means that for every one person that can digest philosophy well it's going to go to many other people who cannot digest it. The best way to encounter philosophy is to observe people actually discussing it rather than memes. Philosophy ideally should be difficult to get into as a barrier against people that either can't understand it or that it would harm. If you have a genuine talent and love for it you will find a way to break through the barrier.

File: images.png (1KB, 113x131px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 113x131px

>>1182059
>>1182454

Im not sure you understand whats the actual purpose of thes threads and board or you are the one who created it and get butthurt when what is actually is going on isnt working

>>1182454
A demonologist transcended mongolist professor and Geist activist was flying a plane, known CIA.

"Before the flight begins, you must get on your knees and worship the end of history and accept that Absolute Idealism is the most highly-evolved sophism to make us feel good about ourselves the continent has ever known, even greater than self-serving petit-bourgeois protestant theology right after I file this flight plan with the Agency!"

At this moment an uncaring if he was brave because being judged by illusionary social standards was of no importance to him, egoist, unique girl's school teacher who had smoked more than 15000 cigars in Hippel's winebar and understood the spookiness of all ideology and supported whatever he felt like stood up and held up "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum".

"You're a big guy."

The arrogant Bane smirked synthetically and smugly replied "Only in relation to you, I'm not big at all, decadent egoist, its the stern, reluctant working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom which makes the fire rise!"

"It's been a few years (time is nothing) since I, Bane, created it. if it was not mine, and idealism, as you say, is not a spook...for if I pulled off the mask of reason and embraced insanity, you'd know that if I removed your mask it would be extremely painful."

CIA was visibly shaken, and dropped his copy of Plato's dialogues.

The mercenaries applauded and all started milk shops that day and accepted their Self-Enjoyment as the end of philosophy. An eagle named "Union of Egoists" flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Stirner's Critics" and shed a beer on the hardcover. "Ich hab' Mein Sach' auf Nichts gestell" was said several times, and Renzo Novatore himself showed up and demonstrated how hand grenades are nothing but a means of killing police officers.

CIA lost his flight plan and the plane was crashed with no survivors that very day, his flight plan was disregarded for all eternity.

File: 1449795985400.png (31KB, 397x390px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 397x390px

>>1182454
Philosophy majors, everyone.

>>1181184
>>1181310
>You can't do that when it predates yourself
>Whenever you do anything it is going to be by its command

Stirner when he uses the term unique one doesnt mean ego in the sense of Freud. He sees it as the foundation of experience - the creative nothing.

For Stirner this creative nothing which is translated as ego cannot predate you or be separated from what is "you". It cannot command you because it is you.
Hence its not paradoxical under his system at all.

>>1182059
>I've already seen people try to use the concept of spooks to justify positivism (which cannot be compatible with the concept of the Unique One). It's people hearing an idea which they think sounds cool and using it without knowing what the arguments supporting it are. They take concepts that had a clear meaning and turn them into meaningless buzz words.

>I've also seen plenty of people that use the word "spook" in an arguement and will admit they never read a word of the man (and will probably justify it by saying "philosophy is a spook" or some other anti-intellectual crap).


Is this just something youve seen on 4chan?

>>1182918
how is it not paradoxical

You are doing what you want but at the same time that is predestined by something that preceded you which imposed upon yourself what you want

>>1183105
Isn't this just argument about agency?

wasnt this guy a massive racist

>>1183105
>You are doing what you want but at the same time that is predestined by something that preceded you which imposed upon yourself what you want

"For Stirner this creative nothing which is translated as ego cannot predate you or be separated from what is "you". It cannot command you because it is you. "

The "ego" cannot precede the individual as it is the individual. Likewise I dont see how predestination comes into this.

>>1183144
Let's just say he used both meanings of spooks.

>>1183145
>"For Stirner this creative nothing which is translated as ego cannot predate you or be separated from what is "you". It cannot command you because it is you. "
No, the creative nothing is from where the ego comes from not the ego itself

>>1183135
He is saying essentially that the ego is 100% pure and is some sort of magical thing that makes up by itself and can be outside of everything

In other words, one comes from non deterministic nature and we are our will to live, anything non natural (spook/social construct) deviates from nature which gives our will to live

Nature as in a superior being predates the man

>>1183195
Actually I do think i was incorrect to hold the creative nothing and unique one as synonyms.

This comment on him seems to have a reasonable explanation of the term that isnt magical

>I think it bears some resemblance to Nietzsche's idea of man as his own creator as well as later existentialist ideas. As I interpret Stirner, the self is a "creative nothing" in the sense that it has no fixed nature or essence but rather creates its own "nature" through its own wilful activity. The self is a "nothing" in that it cannot be captured or defined by any concept, since concepts or definitions are fixed and unchanging, whereas the self is constantly transforming and transcending itself. The self is a "nothing" in that it cannot be identified with any of its external manifestations, e.g. its social role or personal properties, since the self is always free to reject these external forms. The self is not a "nothing" in the sense of emptiness, however, but a creative nothing that only exists by appropriating and externalizing itself in objects which thus become its "property". Of course, for Stirner, the self is absolutely free to enjoy or discard its property like any other owner of private property.

>>1183250
This is essentially what i said

>Non deterministic Chaotic/Nature aka creative nothing
>Gives the will to live aka Ego
>And the self is the externalization of the ego (only bit i missed)

I still stand correct

>>1183276
and all of this is self contradictory or ruled by categorical imperatives set by a sueprior being that predates the man

>>1179303
>haven't read anything to do with philosophy in years because muh unique ideas/thoughts/general lack of interest in other people's non-political ideology

and still, this Stirner chap

the absolute madman

>>1183411
What do you mean?

>>1183320
Im sorry I don't follow you

>>1183479
If its not ruled by categorical imperatives then it means you were born spooked

if its ruled by categorical imperatives then then you also were born spooked but at the same time spooks don't exist as everything is a part of and comes from deterministic nature which would essentially be a single divine being that envelops everything

Its like pic

>>1181184

Everything is a extension of nature you as a individual wouldn't exist

>>1183559
Im not familiar with Kant, so I'm unable to respond to the point you raise.

>>1183429
>at the risk of revealing my ignorance to philosophy

I was mostly just amazed at how bleak and nihilistic his opinions of how humans should act are. It's like a self-contained black hole of 'everyone is invariably looking out for themselves, so you should look out for yourself.' I don't quite grapple with his notions of ego, but I gather that it's his rationale for why you should act this way.

They're not neccessarily on-par with how humans are conditioned to act, either - we're a communal creature and always have been. Only looking out for number one, ultimately, is a pretty small fraction of how we conduct ourselves. We even acknowledge groups when we make independent decisions - e.g., how will doing this affect my friends, my family, etc.

My 'wew lad' thoughts come form his rejection of morality and everything is beneath the individual as a 'spook' or machination of some artificial construct. If anything, the fact that we lived in communal, agrarian societies at some point should indicate that we are clearly willing to forgo a degree of individualism for a community when there are some concrete objectives involved; food, for instance.

>But he doesn't advocate doing EVERYTHING for yourself, just thinking that way

I don't see much value in being irrationally spooked about the dogma of others when there's some anthropology and psychology that suggests we're pack animals.

>>1183710
>f anything, the fact that we lived in communal, agrarian societies at some point should indicate that we are clearly willing to forgo a degree of individualism for a community when there are some concrete objectives involved; food, for instance.

he just says everyone is in for the food and nothing else, not for the group

its like a little kid being annoying

>>1183736
But they're still entering into social contracts, so those can't be spooks.

Neither can everything that came out of that.

>Every single advancement ever produced by a society that engaged in these basic rules

>>1183883
His excuse is that as long as it aligns with your goals, as long as you get food then its not a spook, the moment you think theres something more to it or that you accept something that is not the bare minimun necessary to form the group then you become spooked

but his reasoning is still baseless because he can't tell what comes before the ego, you don't know why you want

>>1183917
and to make it work you would need to know absolutely everything like whats the bare minimum necessary

>>1183710
He doesn't say that everyone is out for themselves, he outright says it's possible to act non-egoistically, though a lot of what we consider to be "above" ourselves, really isn't. He suggests that we should pursue our altruism for our own benefit, and make this altruism more sincere for it. It's really not as awful as you're making it out to be.

Further's he's pretty upfront with how pursuit of your self interest will still involve cooperation, social conduct and altruistic behaviour.

I think you should read the book before criticizing it.

>>1183917
Nothing comes before the ego.

>>1183995
>>1183195
>>1183276

>>1183994
Okay, I'll think about it.

I wanted to try and gain an understanding of his work without reading it, not necessarily embark on some criticism. I guess voicing concerns that are obvious to me seem like the first reaction so as to save myself some time and effort if this man is simply a swivel-eyed lunatic.

>Willingly engaging in hard work when you can be spoonfed the answers
>2016
>Imblying :DDD

>>1184041
That was a whole lot of bullshit. The ego and the self are inseparable. Nothing comes before it because you don't exist before it. Your entire critique is rooted in misunderstanding his work. You're a fucking idiot, also judging by this chain of conversation, an autistic narcissist physically incapable of admitting error.

>>1184048
Well, if you don't want to read his work (believe it or not, I don't blame you, it's dense and he inherited his style of prose from Hegel), you can always read an article elsewhere. Stanford's online encyclopedia of philosophy might give you a better picture.

Regardless, he's not a lunatic by any stretch.

>>1184054

>>1183195
>No, the creative nothing is from where the ego comes from not the ego itself

>>1184061
Oh hey, a baseless assertion that I can dismiss with the same level of support you offered for it. Fuck yourself.

Your assertions are idiotic on a bunch of levels, I'll point one out right now: he never says the self is non-deterministic, in fact he makes no normative claims about the nature of reality, so it being affected by deterministic factors is utterly irrelevant.

>>1184069
He fucking says the ego comes from a creative nothing he knows jack shit about because thats how it works

and to become truly immune to spook you would have to know infinity and whatever comes before you aka the creative nothing itself

>>1184096
In the context of his writing, egoism is the cause of the self, so the ego is the self in his writing.

He never suggests you need to be immune to spooks, you autistic idiot. Why should you even desire to be immune to spooks?

>>1184103
>No because what i repeated before
>he says himself ego comes from the creative nothing that is supposed to be in self but its impossible for a human to know or even write about in a language beyond its name
You keep ignoring what i fucking write

and he says you need to use spooks for yourself but to do so you would need to know everything related to spook, every single last implication which is impossible for a human being to do

>>1184113
>You keep ignoring what i fucking write

Because you keep baselessly asserting things in your autistic quest to prove an utterly irrelevant point. I've seen this shit countless fucking times. You're snarled up on something of no consequence that you find particularly cutting, and you're going to argue it to the death because people not acknowledging it compromises your sense of identity as a "smart guy" when people don't fellate your brain penis.

>and he says you need to use spooks for yourself but to do so you would need to know everything related to spook, every single last implication which is impossible for a human being to do

No, he doesn't. He doesn't say you need to do anything. He doesn't make normative statements about what you need to do or what you ought to do. He suggests a potential method of maintaining some degree of intellectual consistency and personal autonomy. Why would he suggest you need to do all these things with spooks when he himself admits to being possessed with some spooks of his own?

>>1184124
>Because you keep baselessly asserting things in your autistic quest to prove an utterly irrelevant point. I've seen this shit countless fucking times. You're snarled up on something of no consequence that you find particularly cutting, and you're going to argue it to the death because people not acknowledging it compromises your sense of identity as a "smart guy" when people don't fellate your brain penis.
see how you didn't reply to the green text and instead attacked me

You know im fucking right

>No, he doesn't. He doesn't say you need to do anything.
He says to use the spooks for your own well being

and you cannot do this unless you know everything related to the spook which means knowing infinity

>>1184133
>and you cannot do this unless you know everything related to the spook which means knowing infinity
In fact you can't even tell if you are spooked or not without this

>>1184133
>see how you didn't reply to the green text and instead attacked me

Why would I bother? Again, the assertion was utterly baseless (do you know what that means?). He never claims that.

>He says to use the spooks for your own well being

No, he suggests that using ideas to your own benefit (not allowing them to possess you) will allow you greater personal autonomy and intellectual consistency. He never, ever makes a moral imperative of this. You'd know this if you had read his book.

>and you cannot do this unless you know everything related to the spook which means knowing infinity

You can tell it about as well as you can tell anything about yourself, with guesswork and uncertainty. Ambiguity is something autists like yourself can't handle.

>>1184166
>Why would I bother? Again, the assertion was utterly baseless (do you know what that means?). He never claims that.
Yes he does

>and you cannot do this unless you know everything related to the spook which means knowing infinity
Literally what i said with other words

>You can tell it about as well as you can tell anything about yourself, with guesswork and uncertainty. Ambiguity is something autists like yourself can't handle.
>You have to become aware of the spook but to do so you have to know infinity
>Literally impossible for humans to do

>B-but personal attack again

>>1184179
>Yes he does

Prove it.

Again, you can know it about as well as you can know anything about yourself. Do you not understand what introspection is? Why would you need to know infinity?

The personal attacks are warranted. You're acting like a spastic autistic.

>>1184191
Prove that he said what you claimed

>Give arguments
>Ask for arguments in return
>personal attack

and you didn't even try to reply to the second part of the greentext this time

>>1184199
Which part?

Also you never provided an argument. You baselessly asserted a bunch of inane shit and proclaimed yourself the victor. You're the pigeon shitting on the chess board right now.

File: creative nothing.png (15KB, 590x145px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 590x145px

>>1184213
The part where you cannot free yourself or recognize spooks without fully understand them which would mean knowing infinity

>>1184214
>The part where you cannot free yourself or recognize spooks without fully understand them which would mean knowing infinity

Would I do X even if it no longer brought me happiness/contentment? If yes then you have a spooky fixed idea on your hands.

>>1184224
how do you know it brought you that, how do you know it is what you actually would have wanted?

Also BTFO

>>1184214
Yes, he said creative nothing. That proves precisely nothing. The creative nothing was his way acknowledging that the self was undefinable, and end point in language in which any attempt to describe the concept of self or a particular individual would fall short in an act of absurd reductionism.

>which would mean knowing infinity

Again, an asssertion without base. BACK IT UP MAN, GIVE IT SUBSTANCE.

>>1184232
>Yes, he said creative nothing
Could you quote the whole paragraph? i think he said more than that , like its something we are born from

>Again, an asssertion without base. BACK IT UP MAN, GIVE IT SUBSTANCE.

I don't know what is so hard to understand, are you mentally challenged?

>>1184227

>>1184241
The creative nothing is us, we as individuals are are born from ourselves.

You know that through constant introspection and guesswork. This is what I was talking about, with you being an autist that can't handle ambiguity. Your entire argument so far has been "well you'll never be sure, so why bother?"

>>1184227
>how do you know it brought you that, how do you know it is what you actually would have wanted?

The same way you identify what causes you pain some empiricism combined with rational deduction.

I think you are making this harder and more complex than it actually is. If you want to go full skeptic then feel free.

>>1184255
No

my entire argument is that the creative nothingness is something that can't be defined or known its part of the self but theres no explanation at all of what it is

You are supposed to build it up after one imperative that has been set before you even exist

so

>>1183276

>>1184263
You cannot do that

Lets say someone is going to kill you, someone else who you believed in because you projected yourself onto tells you it won't happen but in the end you end up getting murdered

as you couldn't fucking know the future which is impossible you got spooked

>>1184308
>my entire argument is that the creative nothingness is something that can't be defined or known its part of the self but theres no explanation at all of what it is

Reality is also something we have trouble in defining and knowing, yet we still fucking try, you goddamn mong. Also what it is, is the self. Stirner's concept is built upon the idealistic concept of "will" in which a person is composed of several, often competing wills. He just takes it a step further and describes it as something unknowable. But just because you can't know something in its entirety, doesn't mean you can't make a pretty good guess at understanding some parts of it (much like reality itself).

>Lets say someone is going to kill you, someone else who you believed in because you projected yourself onto tells you it won't happen but in the end you end up getting murdered

Then you guessed wrong. Shit happens. Life is full of uncertainty.

Shall we just lay catatonic because we can know neither reality nor ourselves?

>>1184308
>Lets say someone is going to kill you, someone else who you believed in because you projected yourself onto tells you it won't happen but in the end you end up getting murdered

Can you use a different example this one isn't particularly clear?

File: kant.jpg (227KB, 1173x392px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1173x392px

>>1184339
>Reality is also something we have trouble in defining and knowing, yet we still fucking try, you goddamn mong. Also what it is, is the self. Stirner's concept is built upon the idealistic concept of "will" in which a person is composed of several, often competing wills. He just takes it a step further and describes it as something unknowable. But just because you can't know something in its entirety, doesn't mean you can't make a pretty good guess at understanding some parts of it (much like reality itself).

All humans are gigantic aliens that shoot rays from their eyes

But thats my opinion i mean we can never be sure

>Then you guessed wrong. Shit happens. Life is full of uncertainty.
>Shall we just lay catatonic because we can know neither reality nor ourselves?
Thats like the problem philosophy and logic can't get past by , thats why we are stuck with nihilism

at least we shall not make shit up that pretends to know what it doesn't

>>1184341
pic